*1 SYSTEMS, UNITHERM INC. v. SWIFT FOOD ECKRICH, INC., dba CONAGRA
REFRIGERATED FOODS 23, 2006 Argued January 04-597. No. November 2005 Decided *2 Roberts, Thomas, J., Court, J., opinion of which C. delivered the Breyer, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ., Scalia, joined. Kennedy, Stevens, J., filed J., joined, dissenting opinion, in which post, p. petitioner. Bailey argued him the cause for With
Burch Greg Jay Castro, Walters, P. briefs A. and Den- on the were D. Brown. nis argued
Malcolm L. the cause for the United Stewart urging reversal. With him on the States as amicus curiae Attorney Clement, brief were Solicitor General Assistant *3 Hungar, Deputy Keisler, Mar- General Solicitor General August Flentje. leigh Dover, and respondent. argued for Robert A. the cause Schroeder Leigh Reese, R. him on the were Otsuka With briefs John Curran, and P. Passarelli. John opinion the delivered Court. Thomas
Justice jury Ordinarily, a in a trial that believes the civil support legally evidence is insufficient to adverse by filing a of law a will as matter verdict seek a 50(a) pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure motion (if jury, and then the the case to the before submission of jury subsequently granted the is not and pursuant party) against to Rule that decides respondent a Rule mo- filed however, In this case, 50(b) motion did not file a Rule verdict, before the but tion request a new Nor did after the verdict. pro- Appeals nevertheless The under upon and, evidence ceeded to review the the case insufficient, remanded finding was that the evidence addressing require- our cases a new trial. Because for contrary reverse. compel result, we ments of Rule
I genesis underlying litigation in this case was The ConAgra’s attempt patent its for “A Method to enforce for Browning Products,” Muscle Precooked Whole Meat (’027 early patent). ConAgra 2000, In 5,952,027 Patent No. equipment general warning companies who issued a sold processes browning precooked explaining meats that “ ‘aggressively protect rights [its] it under intended to all of (CA 2004). [the ’027] patent.’” 375 F. 3d Fed. processes, Petitioner sold such but not receive Unitherm did ConAgra’s warning. ConAgra also contacted its direct com petitors precooked announcing it business, in the meat “ corresponding patents ‘making was the ’027Patent and royalty per issue available for license at a rate of 100 pound.’” competitor, direct re Id., Jennie-O, at 1345. ConAgra’s correspondence inves ceived and undertook an tigation rights responsibilities with to determine its regard patent. ’027 determined Jennie-0 process browning purchased had from was Unitherm patent. process same as in the ’027 described Jennie-0 patent was because further determined that ’027 invalid president process Unitherm’s had invented the described patent patent years ConAgra in that six filed its before application. determinations, and Uni- with these Jennie-0
Consistent jointly ConAgra of Okla- in the Western District therm sued sought and Unitherm here, homa. As relevant Jennie-0 *4 patent unenforce- that ’027 was invalid and declaration §2 ConAgra alleged of the Sher- that had violated able, and by §2, S. C. 209, amended, Act, 647,26 man ch. Stat. patent commit- attempting obtained to that was enforce (PTO). ting on and Trademark Office fraud the Patent See Machinery Equipment, v. Food & Inc. Process Walker (1965) (holding “the Corp., 174 that 172, 382 Chemical U. S. patent procured on the Patent fraud enforcement of a §2 provided Act of the Sherman violative Office 398 a §2 to case are present”). necessary
the other elements the ’027 and determined construed The District Court patent and on use based Unitherm’s public that was invalid prior § 35 C. described therein. U. S. sale of the process for lack of standing, After Jennie-0 antitrust dismissing to Walker Process claim allowed Unitherm’s District Court ,of the case to the submission to trial. Prior court’s proceed for a verdict under moved directed to the ConAgra jury, the evidence. The on Rule based legal insufficiency motion.1 The returned denied that District Court its mo- Unitherm, neither renewed ConAgra verdict for to 50(b), law Rule as a matter of tion for pursuant to a new on antitrust liability pursuant nor moved for trial Rule 59.2 maintained Circuit,
On to Federal ConAgra appeal sustain the that was insufficient evidence to jury’s there Federal Circuit has Process verdict. Although Walker to “failure the district court present concluded that party’s motion review suf precludes appellate post-verdict evidence,” Biodex v. Loredan Biomedi ficiency of Corp. (1991), in instant it was cal, 850, 946 F. 2d 862 case Inc., Circuit, 3d, 375 bound the law of the Tenth F. to apply (“On 50 . . . 1365, most issues related Rule motions n. unless the circuit law we generally apply regional precise only pertained motion respondent’s Petitioner contends that claim, and that it did Walker Process petitioner’s element of fraud of that claim. Because encompass remaining not antitrust elements scope prevail irrespective petitioner we conclude that is entitled 50(a) motion, deciding we without respondent’s assume §2 claim. But Amend aspects petitioner’s motion to all see pertained (1991) Procedure, D. F R. ments Federal Rules of Civil (“A ad grounds on can be post-trial granted motion motion”). the pre-verdict vanced in on seeking new did ConAgra While file a seek did not damages, antitrust bearing no on liability thus has establishing antitrust the evidence instant case.
399 law”). issue to being appealed pertains uniquely patent Tenth law, Under Circuit a that has failed file to a party the of the evi- sufficiency challenging dence nonetheless raise such a claim so on appeal, long filed a Rule to party submission prior the case to the jury. Cummings v. General Motors Corp., (2004). F. 3d 944, 365 950-951 the available Notably, in Id., relief such a circumstance is new trial. at 951. to Freed examine evidence, sufficiency the Fed- eral Circuit that, concluded although Unitherm had pre- sented sufficient evidence to determination support had ConAgra attempted to enforce ob- patent had tained fraud on PTO, 3d, 375 through F. Uni- therm had to failed to present evidence sufficient support elements of its Id., remaining antitrust claim. at 1365 (“Unitherm to failed present economic evidence any capable its asserted sustaining market, relevant antitrust and to claim”). little other support any of its Section aspect it vacated the Accordingly, favor of Uni- jury’s judgment therm and remanded for a certiorari, new trial. We granted (2005), and now reverse.
II Federal Rule of Civil forth Procedure sets the proce- dural requirements evi- sufficiency of the challenging dence a civil trial and establishes jury two for such stages to submission of the challenges prior case jury, — after the verdict and allows judgment. party of the evidence prior submission of the case to the and authorizes the district jury, court such grant motions at court’s discretion: Judgment op
“(a) as a Matter Law. “(1) If a trial has during been fully by jury party heard on an is no issue there evi- sufficient legally for a dentiary basis reasonable to find for that on that issue, the determine issue against *6 party may grant judgment as a motion for
that against party respect a claim matter of law controlling cannot under law be or defense that finding on or defeated without maintained a favorable issue. “(2) judgment for as a matter of Motions law any time before submission of the case to the made at specify sought jury. judgment a motion shall Such moving party is law and the facts on which the and the judgment.” to the entitled 50(b), procedural require- by contrast, sets forth renewing
ments for of the evidence entry jury judgment. after the verdict “(b) Renewing Judgment After Motion for If, for Trial; Alternative Motion New Trial. for any grant judg- reason, the court does not a motion for a matter of law at the all the ment as made close of court have evidence, the is considered to submitted subject deciding action to the later to the court’s legal questions The movant raised the motion. request judgment renew its as a matter of law days entry filing no later after a motion than judgment may alternatively request a new trial or —and join ruling In motion for a new trial under Rule may: motion, on a renewed the court “(1) if was a verdict returned: “(A) stand, allow “(B) trial, order a new or “(C) entry judgment as a matter of direct . law ....” implications party’s of a fail-
This
has addressed the
Court
on several
motion under
ure
file a
This
variety
procedural contexts.
in a
occasions and
“[i]n
a motion”
such
the absence
that,
has concluded
District
power
[is]
“appellate
to direct
court
without
Court to enter
one
had
judgment contrary
permitted
v.
Co.,
stand.” Cone West
&
Pulp
Virginia
Paper
(1947).
U. S.
has
concluded
This Court
similarly
that a
failure to
file Rule
motion
party’s
deprives
court of the
to order the
in favor of that
where the district
directed the
court
verdict,
Roman,
Globe
Co. v. San
cuit did
But this distinction is immaterial. This
necessity
postverdict mo-
observations about the
of a
Court’s
50(b),
court’s
tion under Rule
benefits
the district
stage,
equal
party
input
apply
at that
with
force whether
judgment
simply
seeking
of law
new
as a matter
or
trial.
50(b) per-
Cone,
that,
this Court
because
In
concluded
to choose
mits the district court to exercise its discretion
ordering
“ap-
entering judgment,
a new
its
between
praisal
by
of the bona fides of
claims asserted
the liti-
great
reaching
gants is of
value in
a conclusion as to whether
'
granted.”
(emphasis
S.,
anew trial should be
at 216
added). Similarly,
party
has determined that a
this Court
may only pursue
appeal particular
on
avenue of relief avail-
50(b), namely,
judgment
able under Rule
or a
complied
trial,
new
when that
has
with the Rule’s fil-
ing requirements
requesting
particular
relief below.
supra,
(“Respondent
Johnson,
See
made motion to
set aside the verdict and for new trial within the time re-
quired by
comply
permission
It failed
given
to move
n. o. v. after the verdict.
In this situation
is entitled
trial,
a new
favor”).4
not to a
in its
§2106
suggestion
The dissent’s
that 28 U. C.
permits
the courts of
appeals
to consider the
of the evidence underlying a civil
*8
party’s
comply
verdict
a
with Rule 50
notwithstanding
failure to
is fore
by authority
§2106
of
While the
closed
this Court.
dissent observes that
Roman,
Liquor
Cone
Globe
Co. v. San
was enacted after
and
The dissent’s
by
Court,
is not
authority
foreclosed
of this
may present
also
Seventh Amendment
implication
concerns. The
of the
§2106
dissent’s interpretation of
appeals
that a court of
would
free
to examine
sufficiency
the
regardless
the
appel-
evidence
whether the
had
and,
lant
filed a Rule
motion in the district court
in the event
appellant
motion,
the
had filed a Rule
regardless of
the
whether
district court had ever ruled on that motion. The former is
fore-
squarely
Ins,
Co.,
closed
v.
(1913),
Slocum New York
Our respondent’s determination that comply failure to with Rule forecloses its
the evidence is further purported validated basis of respondent’s appeal, namely, the District Court’s denial of respondent’s 50(a) preverdict Rule motion. As an initial matter, Liquor, Cone, Globe unequivocally Johnson es precise tablish subject that the 50(a) matter party’s of a namely, its judgment entitlement to as a matter of motion— law—cannot be
appealed unless that motion is pur renewed suant to Rule respondent Here, does not pur seek to appeal sue on precise it claim raised in its Rule motion before the District namely, its entitlement to Court— aas matter of Rather, law. it seeks a new trial legal based on the insufficiency of the evidence. But if, Liquor, Cone, Globe litigant Johnson, a that has failed to file a Rule motion is seeking foreclosed from sought relief in its Rule e., motion—i. surely respondent from seek —then foreclosed ing a new trial, relief it did not and could not. seek in its
preverdict motion. In short, sought never a new before District Court, right and thus forfeited its appeal. so on do Yakus v. States, United 321 S. U. (“No (1944) procedural principle is more familiar to this right than that a . . . be forfeited ... basis of the movant's trial, entitlement to a new namely, “the Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding that there prejudicial was error in the admission S., evidence.” at 215. *10 timely right failure to make of before assertion the a tribunal it”). jurisdiction having to determine respondent’s prever- The text of Rule confirms that 50(a) present dict Rule not did the District Court option ordering provides the a new trial. That text may only that a district court order new trial on the basis preverdict of issues in a raised motion when “rul- ing Accordingly, on a renewed motion” under Rule grant even if the District Court was inclined to a new trial arguments respondent’s preverdict on the basis of raised motion, it was without the to so under do pursuant absent a to that Rule. Conse- quently, Appeals similarly powerless. the was
Similarly, application support the text and of Rule respondent may our determination not appeal 50(a) on Dis- the evidence on the basis of the pro- trict Court’s denial of The Rule its Rule motion. vides that no le- “the court determine” that “there is gally evidentiary jury sufficient basis for a reasonable to find “may grant [a] [a party given] for motion for issue,” on (Em- judgment against party as a matter of law ....” added.) phasis permitted while court is Thus, a district judgment enter as it concludes that a matter of law when required legally so. insufficient, the evidence it is to do not contrary, anything, are, To the if encour- the district courts aged granting jury, than submit case rather Wright explain: such motions. As Miller desir- “Even at the close all the evidence granting judgment for as able to refrain from a motion possible despite that it would be a matter law the fact judgment as a matter so. If the district court to do granted appellate court holds of law is and the jury, go an entire to the evidence in fact was sufficient the trial hand, new the other If, trial must be had. on jury, though it thinks the court submits case the case is final insufficient, evidence determination expedited greatly. jury agrees If the with the court’s appraisal evidence, of. and returns a verdict for the who moved for as a law, matter of case is at an If brings end. in a different ver- grant dict, the trial court can judg- a renewed motion for ment a matter of law. Then appellate if the holds that the trial appraisal court was error in its the evidence, it can reverse and order on the jury, verdict of any without need for a new trial. For this reason the repeatedly courts have said *11 usually that it is desirable to take a verdict, and then pass sufficiency on the post-verdict of evidence on a (footnote motion.” 9A Federal Practice §2533, at 319 omitted).
Thus, the respondent’s District preverdict Court’s denial of respondent’s cannot form the basis of appeal, because the denial merely of motion was not error. It was an exercise of the District Court's discretion, in accordance with the text of the accepted practice Rule and the permitting an make initial about the the evidence. The here was error failure to counsel’s 50(b).6 pursuant file a to Rule 6Respondent claims that its failure to renew its Rule motion was in reliance on the Tenth Circuit’s determination that it could order a new trial in the of a Rule absence respondent motion. But cannot credi bly maintain that it wanted the Court Appeals to order a new trial as opposed, to And, entering judgment. as the Tenth Circuit has recognized, respondent could not obtain of judgment complied unless it Rule Cummings (2004). v. Corp., General Motors 944, 951 365 F. 3d Respondent therefore had every to comply incentive re with that Rule’s quirements. Accordingly, we reject its contention application that our to the instant impermissibly case is See also retroactive. Harper Taxation, (1993) v. Virginia Dept. 86, (“[W]e 509 U. S. can scarcely permit the substantive spring to shift and according law particular equities of individual parties’ claims of actual reliance on an old (internal rule and of from a harm application retroactive new rule” omitted)). quotation marks brackets [*] H= [*] foregoing For the reasons, we hold that since preverdict specified renew its (cid:127)failed to in motion as 50(b), respondent’s there was no basis for review of suffi- ciency Appeals. evidence the Court of Appeals The of the Court of is reversed.7
It is ordered. so Kennedy Stevens, Justice with whom Justice joins, dissenting.
Murphy’s applies lawyers pilots. law to trial as well as expert occasionally Even an will For that reason blunder. Congress preserved appeals power has federal courts’ plain though error, correct even will counsel’s omission ordinarily give binding rise This case, waiver. is not a my authority view, in which the court is explicit controlling spirit limited or statute rule. The preservation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favors manifestly unjust of a court’s to avoid in ex results ceptional cases. H. H. R. York, See Johnson New N. & v. (1952) (Frankfurter, dissenting) Co., J., (“ *12 equal ‘Procedure is the means; full, and exact enforcement (quoting of Pound, substantive law is the end’” The Eti quette Proceedings Justice, of 231 3 Neb. St. Bar Assn. (1909))). duty obey overriding Moreover, we have an to statutory unambiguously express commands that the intent Congress procedure even in in which we areas such as may special expertise. have
Today, primarily relying 1947, in March on case decided Virginia Pulp Paper Co., 212, v. West & 330 U. Cone S. January Liquor 1948, a case in Co. v. San decided Globe reject We it is entitled a remand for respondent’s contention to (CA Phillips Corp., AWH v. 415 F. Fed. light reconsideration in 3d 2005). already respondent’s for petition The Federal Circuit has denied rehearing raising this issue. Ap-
Roman, the Court holds that the 571, 332 U. S. “powerless” peals review the of the evi- was supporting petitioner’s the verdict in favor because dence pursuant proper failed to file motions Procedure Rules Federal Rules Civil majority’s holding in at 405. The Ante, court. just after with a statute enacted months Globe inconsistent Liquor in statute, was decided. That which remains effect provides: today, Supreme any appellate
“The court of Court or other jurisdiction may modify, affirm, vacate, set aside or re- any lawfully judgment, or order a court decree, verse may brought review, and before it for remand the cause appropriate judgment, and direct the of such de- require proceedings order, cree, or or such further just had be be under the circumstances.” 28 §2106. U. S. C.
Nothing statutory grant limits this appellate party’s courts; to 50(b) while a failure to make a Rule directing precludes the district court from party’s purport favor, verdict in that does not authority strip appeals the courts of to review district judgments “may just or to order such relief as under general principles or the circumstances.” Nor do of waiver ante, forfeiture have It is well that effect. Cf. 404-405. argument litigant’s settled that waiver or forfeiture of an statutory contrary command, not, does the absence of a considering argu preclude appeals those the courts of from (1976). Singleton ments. See v. Wulff, appeal Arguments be enter time on raised for the first prevent example, would if their consideration tained, injustice. manifest Ibid.* limits Amendment the Seventh suggests *The Court *13 ante, § U. S. C. 2106. See under 28 judgments
courts’ review respects. in two analysis 402-403, Court’s disagree n. 4. I For the reasons articulated in Cone, S., 330 U. at 216, it be unfair or even an abuse of discretion for a appeals court of to direct party a verdict in favor of the lost if timely below that failed to make a “just Likewise, motion. not be under the circum- appeals stances” for a court of to order a new trial in the proper Finally, absence of a ap- Rule 59 motion. a court of peals grounds has discretion to rebuff, on of waiver or forfeit- sufficiency ure, a absent evidence proper Rule or Rule 59 motion made in the district court. foregoing propositions None of the rests, however, on a appeals determination that the “power” courts of lack to review the appro- the evidence and order priate relief under these circumstances, and I can divine no basis for that determination. respectfully
I
dissent.
First, although
right
trial
jury might be
if no Rule
implicated
made,
motion had been
such a motion was made in
case. The
this
triggered
questions,”
automatic reservation of “legal
50(b),
turn,
Fed. Rule Civ.
reservation,
Proc.
any
averted
Sev
Line,
enth
see Baltimore & Carolina
v. Red-
problem,
Amendment
Inc.
man,
(1935). Second,